Received: from mail.proteosys.com ([62.225.9.49]) by nummer-3.proteosys with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:56:20 +0100 Received: by mail.proteosys.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h066uI6C011449 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:56:19 +0100 Received: from listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h066puwO006930; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:51:57 +0100 (MET) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2B550.B7798200" Received: from listserv (listserv.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.100.27]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h064ACUi008642; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:43:59 +0100 Received: from LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE by LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8d) with spool id 4960 for LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:43:59 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Received: from relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (relay2.uni-heidelberg.de [129.206.210.211]) by listserv.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.2/8.12.2/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id h066hxTk009039 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:43:59 +0100 Received: from cs.anu.edu.au (mail@cs.anu.edu.au [150.203.164.35]) by relay2.uni-heidelberg.de (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h066oQwO006733 for ; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:50:27 +0100 (MET) Received: from king.anu.edu.au ([150.203.160.29]) by cs.anu.edu.au with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18VR5b-0007yO-00 for ; Mon, 06 Jan 2003 17:50:23 +1100 Received: (from richard@localhost) by king.anu.edu.au (8.11.6/8.9.3) id h066oNl27797; Mon, 6 Jan 2003 17:50:23 +1100 In-Reply-To: References: Return-Path: X-Mailer: VM 6.96 under Emacs 21.0.105.1 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Jan 2003 06:56:21.0346 (UTC) FILETIME=[B846E420:01C2B550] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.28 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) X-Spam-Score: -0.5 () IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: Proposed change of policy Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 07:50:23 +0100 Message-ID: A<15897.10031.19948.331055@cs.anu.edu.au> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Re: Proposed change of policy Thread-Index: AcK1ULh0L35df7eLSEGtyO1xMt8O8A== From: "Richard Walker" To: Reply-To: "Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 4390 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B550.B7798200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I for one consider a change like this to be inevitable. (I just didn't want to be the first one to say so.) But the question then arises: why e-TeX? Why not Omega, an e-TeX/Omega hybrid, . . . ? We could argue about which is `closest' to TeX (passes the TRIP test and/or some other measures) but for LaTeX, why not go as far away as possible? If we are calling it LaTeX 3 and even _considering_ changing the underlying program, why not pick one (whether it exists right now or _could_ exist once we decide exactly what we want) that addresses most/all of the issues raised by all the years of experience with the current LaTeX implementation? I can think of good arguments for both extremes; this question seems to be more political than technical. Richard. -- Richard Walker Richard.Walker@cs.anu.edu.au Department of Computer Science Phone: (02) 6125 3785 The Australian National University Intl: +61 2 6125 3785 Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia Fax: +61 2 6125 0010 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B550.B7798200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Proposed change of policy

I for one consider a change like this to be = inevitable.
(I just didn't want to be the first one to say = so.)

But the question then arises:  why e-TeX?  = Why not Omega, an
e-TeX/Omega hybrid, . . . ?

We could argue about which is `closest' to TeX (passes = the TRIP test
and/or some other measures) but for LaTeX, why not go = as far away as
possible?  If we are calling it LaTeX 3 and even = _considering_
changing the underlying program, why not pick one = (whether it exists
right now or _could_ exist once we decide exactly = what we want) that
addresses most/all of the issues raised by all the = years of experience
with the current LaTeX implementation?

I can think of good arguments for both extremes; this = question seems
to be more political than technical.

Richard.

--
Richard = Walker           &= nbsp;           &n= bsp; Richard.Walker@cs.anu.edu.au
Department of Computer = Science         Phone: (02) 6125 = 3785
The Australian National = University     Intl: +61 2 6125 3785
Canberra, ACT 0200, = Australia          = Fax:  +61 2 6125 0010

------_=_NextPart_001_01C2B550.B7798200--